Media Climate Alarmism Has Become ‘Primitive’…’Intellectually Subterranean,’ German Scientists Say

Recent SRF German public broadcasting commentary on climate change has reached a new low in quality and a new high in activism, two respected German scientists say.

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

“Climate-alarm propaganda day”

November 29, 2017, was once again a climate alarm propaganda day on the German public television and radio stations of SRF (Süddeutsche Rundfunk).

But it was even more shocking to see the primitive level of argumentation used there to fan fear among the public. For example, this video clip here is designed to refute climate skeptics.

Unfortunately, it represents intellectually subterranean SRF alarmist theater, using arguments as a “hammer against skeptics.”

1) Shrinking mountain glaciers
Bingo. Yet no one is challenging that it has been getting warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age beginning in 1850.

But why was nothing said about how the melting glaciers of today are uncovering tree trunks from even warmer periods of the Holocene and that as a result, the glaciers back then were at much higher elevations and smaller in size than they are today?

2) Climate change was not invented by the Chinese
OMG! – Seriously? – Was that meant for real?

3) There is no climate change pause
In the diagram, only the peak of the last El Nino of 2016 is represented. The decrease in temperature since then and the term El Nino is not mentioned at all in the explanation.

4) The polar bears are doing just fine…But they are really not doing okay because of the supposedly melting ice.
The chart shown interestingly looks only at a few areas where the numbers are expected to fall and ignores the fact that the populations have developed normally or well over the recent years, despite the reduced ice coverage.

5) Skeptical scientists are only 12%, environmental scientists
…who according to the SRF are the only ones who should speak up publicly on the matter, and only 0.1% are climate scientists.
More than 90%, however, are convinced climate alarmists. Missing here is only the famous 97% from Cook et al. Here we suspect that the word got around even at SRF studios that the magical 97 percent figure is a merely senseless bogus number…

The manipulative character of the agitation is demonstrated by the fact that the most important arguments held by climate skeptics aren’t even mentioned.

For example, the fluctuating, long-term solar activity in combination with the amplification mechanism as to Svensmark; the oscillating ocean currents on decadal scales; the obviously hyped CO2 climate sensitivity in the IPCC models; the refuted water vapor feedback and finally the inability by the CO2 alarmists to successfully model the strong natural variations of the Holocene climate.

Read more at No Tricks Zone

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover


    Proving that liberals blame everything from ISIS to Burnt Toast on Global Warming/Climate Change these hysterical Enviromentalists nutcases want to send all skeptics to Concentration Camps/Gulags for refusing to escept gaia as their mother and for refusing to turn over ment duaggters as sacrifice to their pagan deities they worship during their Earthday celebrations

  • Avatar



    1. Since we have been in the Holocene Inter Glacial Warm period for something like 12,000 years…if glaciers melt…and reveal that sometime in this warm 12,000 year period, TREES grew there, before ocean or wind currents enabled glaciers to form.
    AS the author claims….erroneously !
    TREES GROW IN 50 DEGREE WEATHER, quite easily.
    Doesn’t mean that it was warmer than today….in fact, it was not warmer during any time in the Holocene than it is today !
    2. is nonsense…though TRUMP honestly believes that the CHINESE
    invented climate change…..CALLING THOMAS JEFFERSON and ALEXANDER von HUMBOLDT LIARS for postulating that in 1799.
    3. 2014 was the ALL time Warmest year on record…
    Until 2015 was the ALL time Warmest year on record…
    Until 2016 was the ALL time Warmest year on record…
    Until 2017 insisted on nestling in between all those other HOT Years.
    4. The predictions regarding a struggling Polar Bear population
    was in reference to LONG TERM survivability….in the face of MELTING ICE COVER and ICE BURGS…etc.
    The World is divided in 19 Polar Bear Zones… 8 groupings of bears are having some population reductions…others are NOW doing fine.
    5. CONSENSUS ?
    Is Extremely Strong among Climate Scientists … and Very Strong among scientists in various branches of science.
    Is there really a consensus on global warming?
    Michael Barnard, Low-carbon Innovation Strategist
    Updated Apr 26, 2017
    “Depending on the method, the many studies on this subject show that from
    97.1% to 99.99% of climate scientists — defined as researchers publishing
    in peer-reviewed journals — accept that the climate is rapidly changing
    due to human actions. The degree of severity they ascribe to impacts of
    climate change varies according to their specific areas of study and their models,
    but those ranges are captured in the IPCC 5 scenarios,
    all of which show not only warming but significant negative impacts.
    The high end and very recent study shows 99.99% consensus.
    James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium,
    did the most recent of several peer-reviewed,
    published studies showing the overwhelming consensus by climate scientists
    on anthropogenic climate change.
    Here’s what he says:
    If the consensus were 97%, then to find 3 peer-reviewed articles that reject AGW,
    one would need to read, on average, 100 articles.
    Instead, to find even a single rejecting article,
    one must read nearly 5,000 articles.

    The true consensus on AGW cannot be as low as 97%.
    The only sound and practical way to judge the extent of a scientific consensus
    is to search for articles that reject the prevailing theory. For 2013 and 2014,
    I found that only 5 of 24,210 articles
    4 of 69,406 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.
    Home Page
    His full paper is linked from that site.
    Also very recently, Benestad et al published a paper in the journal
    Theoretical Applied Climatology in July 2015.
    They spread an even wider net than Powell, looking at every significant paper
    ever published in a peer-reviewed journal that denied anthropogenic climate change.
    They found 38 papers.
    A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or
    ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions,
    be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases,
    short-comings are due to insufficient model evaluation,
    leading to results that are not universally valid
    but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup.

    Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods,
    basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics.
    We also note that several of these papers involved the same authors
    and that the different cases were not independent even if they involved different
    shortcomings. Some of the cases also implied interpretations that were
    incompatible with some of the other cases, such as pronounced
    externally induced geophysical cycles and a dominant role of long-term
    persistence (LTP); slow stochastic fluctuations associated with
    LTP make the detection of meaningful cycles from solar forcing difficult
    if they shape the dominant character in the geophysical record.
    Page on
    It other words, the papers don’t agree with one another,
    they are written in fairly obvious ignorance of reasonably well known
    science and modelling basics and there are a handful of authors
    who keep writing stuff that’s in denial, not a large number of them.

    The authors of this paper — disclosure:
    I’ve communicated with Lewandowsky, one of the authors, many times
    — bend over backward to avoid saying the obvious about the authors,
    instead treating them with respect and suggesting reasons why they might,
    possibly, maybe have just been accidentally ignorant.
    But what about that 97%?
    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
    show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:
    Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.
    In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide
    have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following
    is a partial list of these organizations,
    along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
    Scientific consensus:
    Earth’s climate is warming
    Here are the five major papers that arrived at 97%:
    J. Cook, et al, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
    in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters
    Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
    Quotation from page 3: “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW
    [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the
    scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW
    in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
    W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,”
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109
    (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
    P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman,
    “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,”
    Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22;
    DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
    N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower:
    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686
    (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
    So we have seven peer-reviewed and published papers which use different techniques,
    published from 2004 to 2015, which show that the consensus among
    climate science papers is in excess of 97% and that there are a
    tiny number of dissenters who are making obviously incorrect statements.

    You can argue with one paper which has not been reproduced.
    It’s harder to argue with a paper whose results have been reproduced.
    And it’s much harder to argue with multiple different methodologies
    which arrive at the same result.
    In the case of climate scientists having a very strong consensus on the
    basics of anthropogenic climate change, consilience is extremely high.

Comments are closed